Vivir en un centro histórico en Latinoamérica. Percepciones de los hogares de profesionales en la ciudad de Puebla
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En este artículo se presentan los resultados de una investigación sobre la “clase profesional” que se llevó a cabo en la ciudad de Puebla (México) en relación con sus percepciones sobre el centro histórico como hábitat. A pesar de que la unesco otorgó a la ciudad su reconocimiento como patrimonio mundial y pese a todos los programas diseñados para protegerla y mejorarla, su centro antiguo no parece ser uno de los “buenos sectores” (los barrios adecuados) para vivir. Los hogares de profesionales que viven en el centro histórico han satisfecho sus condiciones de vida; sin embargo varios de ellos, que no residen en el centro, tienen una percepción negativa sobre la seguridad, la limpieza, la infraestructura y las condiciones sociales del sector. Esta percepción perjudica la revitalización sociorresidencial del centro histórico de la ciudad.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".